4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Vaivarta_Purana

The text is notable for identifying Krishna as the supreme Reality and asserting that all gods such as Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Ganesha are same, and all are incarnations of Krishna.

This might have been added after Ramanuja's time. Since Vishnu Purana says Krishna is a part of a part of Vishnu, Ramanuja would have had issues with elevating Krishna to supremacy.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

Ramanujacharya didn't write a commentary on the Brahma Vaivarta Purana. In fact Ramanujacharya didn't write any Purana commentaries at all. As described in this excerpt from Vedanta Desikan's Rahasyatraya Sara, he only composed nine works: the Sri Bhashya, the Vedanta Dipa, and the Vedanta Sara, three commentaries on the Brahma Sutras; the Bhagavad Gita Bhashya, a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita; the Vedartha Sangraha, an independent exposition of Visistadvaita; the Sharanagati Gadyam, the Sri Ranga Gadyam, and the Vaikuntha Gadyam, three prose hymns in praise of Vishnu; and the Nityam, a work about the daily activities of Sri Vaishnavas. (All these works are available in English except the Nityam.). He didn't compose commentaries on any Puranas including the Vishnu Purana.

Other Sri Vaishnava Acharyas did write Purana commentaries, but only on the Vishnu Purana and Srimad Bhagavatam as far as I know. But Ramanujacharya does quote from the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, in this section of the Sri Bhashya:

Scripture declares, 'no work the fruits of which have not been completely enjoyed perishes even in millions of aeons.'

As this forum post says, this verse is from the Prakriti Kanda of the Brahma Vaivarta Purana.

But Ramanujacharya does not quote or discuss the Brahmvaivarta Purana declaring Krishna to be supreme and Vishnu to be an incarnation of Krishna. Whereas he and numerous other Sri Vaishnava Acharyas discuss the Shaiva Purana passages declaring Shiva to be supreme.

Improve this answer
8
  • so krishna being supreme is a non-issue for non-gaudiya vaishnavites?
    – S K
    Feb 13, 2018 at 17:50
  • 1
    @SK Sri Vaishnavas certainly disagree with Gaudiya Vaishnava beliefs that Vishnu was an incarnation of Krishna. I was more saying that the fact that they don't discuss such passages suggests that those passages are interpolations.
    – Keshav Srinivasan ♦
    Feb 13, 2018 at 17:54
  • 2
    @SK That argument sounds leftist. There are so many Vishnu temples in the North.
    – user9969
    Feb 14, 2018 at 2:05
  • 1
    @SK And also check this out: hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/19746/…
    – user9969
    Feb 14, 2018 at 2:12
  • 2
    @SK yes, westerners claim that purusha sukta is interpolation just like they say how ganesha is, or ramyana is where rama is Vishnu, or how bhagvad geeta is, or how badrayana and vyasa are different people. The scholars are crazy people, there are other mentions of purusha in rig Vedic brahmanams and even samhita, how can it be interpolation.
    – Anubhav Jha
    Feb 27, 2018 at 16:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .